[B]oth the public and state government are largely in the dark about what toxic chemicals are used in Vermont industry, says a report from a working group convened last year at the request of the Legislature.
To tell the public more about toxic substances in Vermont, the state first needs to gather that information, since state and federal oversight laws give regulators little data on the chemicals used in industry, the group says.
“The result of the current regulatory framework is that the potential threats to human health and the environment from chemicals in commerce are largely unknown to the state of Vermont,” says the report from what’s called the Act 154 chemical use working group.
“These substances can enter the air, groundwater, soils and surface water, and may pose a threat to human health and the environment,” the report says. But for the vast majority, the state knows little about their toxicity and use.
“This information is critical to enable the state to effectively respond to emergencies and threats posed by chemicals of emerging concern, and to prioritize limited resources to address those chemicals that pose the greatest risk to Vermonters,” the report says.
The report makes several suggestions intended to prevent situations like the contamination of drinking water in southwestern Vermont by perfluorooctanoic acid, or PFOA.
State regulators weren’t aware of the chemical’s toxicity or its presence in Vermont groundwater until after a New York resident told authorities there that he’d discovered PFOA in his well.
The worst known PFOA contamination in the state is concentrated in Bennington, site of the former Chemfab factory. State regulators sought for decades — in response to Bennington residents’ complaints about the factory’s foul odors — to discover what chemicals Chemfab may have been releasing.
Chemfab used PFOA for decades in its industrial processes, and the company’s chemical supplier — DuPont — knew as early as the 1980s that PFOA induced tumors and birth defects in lab animals. But state regulators say they were unaware until last year that Chemfab had even used the chemical.
In the months after the discovery of PFOA in Bennington wells, Agency of Natural Resources officials scrambled to learn what other companies and organizations had used the chemical, because Vermont regulators had no records indicating where it was used. The substance was later found in groundwater at sites around the state.
Legislators responded last year with a law establishing a working group to recommend measures to prevent Vermonters’ exposure to toxic substances; to identify and regulate currently unregulated toxics used in the state; and to inform Vermonters of these chemicals’ presence and attributes.
The working group included academics, corporate representatives, state officials, environmental advocates and others.
The group released its recommendations to the Legislature on Jan. 13.
The group recommended that lawmakers pursue four broadly outlined goals: to expand chemical reporting requirements for businesses; give Vermonters access to what companies report; provide Vermonters with information on health risks associated with chemicals companies use; and strengthen remedies available to Vermonters harmed by toxic pollutants.
One industry representative said the group mainly rehashed ideas that environmental advocates had already proposed in response to toxic pollution from Vermont companies.
“They were largely the same proposals” groups like the Vermont Public Interest Research Group and the Vermont Natural Resources Council brought up last year, said William Driscoll, vice president of Associated Industries of Vermont and a member of the working group. A majority of the working group supported these proposals, he said.
But the working group didn’t adequately evaluate the proposed fixes, Driscoll said, and businesses he represents still question the need for some of the proposals.
Lawmakers and regulators must beware of diminishing returns from overzealous oversight, Driscoll said.
For instance, a chemical may be toxic if enough is ingested but harmless when contained in a product not meant for consumption, he said. The state might be better off using its resources elsewhere than in requiring lengthy disclosures from companies whose products don’t hurt anyone, Driscoll said.
Some products may contain trace amounts of toxic chemicals, as well, Driscoll said, and without a reasonable limit on the quantity that triggers oversight, small Vermont businesses will suffer.
“It’s not that we shouldn’t be doing testing, and it’s not that we shouldn’t be doing reporting,” he said. Rather, he said, what lawmakers should seek from Vermont industries is “what’s feasible and manageable to do.”
Finally, businesses regulate themselves to a meaningful degree, since it’s against their interests to harm their customers and others, Driscoll said.
“Car manufacturers don’t want to make cars where people are dying everywhere,” he said. “Manufacturers have an inherent interest not to be putting something out there that’s causing harm.”
Other working group members welcomed the recommendations as a path to much-needed reforms.
“Hopefully they’ll become part of legislation this year,” said Jon Groveman, former Agency of Natural Resources general counsel and current VNRC policy and water programs director, “so we don’t get another PFOA, or reduce the likelihood that it occurs — and (so that) if it occurs, people have the right to protect themselves legally and recover damages and address the harm.”
